Cheney (Snark): "If the world finds out about our crimes, they might get upset and stop us from doing other nasty things."

Hitler must be rolling in his grave (snark), "Vy didn't I stink of dat?"

* * *

Oversight and ORCON

Isn't the idea of "accountability" to ensure there is compliance with the laws? Why are we being led to believe, "If we know the truth, it will be bad."

The idea of the truth is to prevent the abuse of power, and protect rights. This White House, caught in a violation of the Constitution, wants to argue that we must keep quiet about the truth so that other illegal activity can be permitted.

This is absurd.

* * *

Consider NSA in light of the banking information. . .

Expert Testimony on NSA-AT&T Cooperation

AT&T has constructed an extensive -- and expensive -- collection of infrastructure . . .with the capacity to assist the government in carrying out the program" [See See Page 12/40, Para 38-9]

Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [SWIFT]

On that banking surveillance, don't get hung up on the data. Rather, look at where they are using/applying that information: To conduct warrantless interrogations on Americans. [More: SWIFT integrates with DHS through this datasharing (Reed)]

The information they obtain without warrants [using self-issued-warrants] is then used to trigger warrantless interrogations, and detention -- you are not allowed to have an attorney with you;

They are using their ignorance about something to self-issue a warrant; this is opposite of what the Constitution requires: Specificity. Right now they are using the illegal "general warrants" to then "justify" going around the FISA court, and targeting you with NSA.

The holes in the databases trigger additional questions, and more warrantless searches;

They're not just targeting Al-Queda, but anyone that has a nice chunk of money flowing because of normal businesses transactions; and

The warrantless interrogations are not polite, they will accuse Americans of being up to no good, even though the funds are related to legitimate business sales and transactions.

Here are the procedures FBI agents know they're supposed to follow: MAOP. The issue: How has the DoJ OPR documented, if at all, complaints by FBI agents that they are not allowed to pursue the matters related to DoJ AG violations of 1802.

The consequences about which the FBI and OIPR were concerned included the potential (1) rejection of the FISA application or the loss of a FISA renewal and/or (2) suppression of evidence gathered using FISA tools, which, in turn, might lead to loss of the criminal prosecution.

. . .

"FBI and OIPR were concerned over the consequences should a court find that the primary purpose of the surveillance or search had shifted from intelligence gathering to collecting evidence for criminal prosecution. "

-- so they went around the Court, to avoid detection of this blending.

* * *

Recall OIPR [Office of Intelligence Policy and Review] prepares the warrants. (Ref: 10 of 48), yet we also know that DoJ manning isn't overtaxed; rather, they have time to surf the internet looking at other things.

Look at 11 of 48, and [ consider/ probe into/ explore/ review/ examine/ subpoena through Congress] the FBI Director certifications made on the intercepts:

Emphasis Added: With respect to FBI foreign counterintelligence investigations, the FBI Director must certify, among other things, to the FISA Court that the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques.Ref

Evidence/Discovery: Areas Committee Needs to Review

- Dates: When did the FBI director make the certifications;

- Access: Where are the Director's certifications physically held in physical space;

- OIPR: Who inside OIPR, that has an MAOP-compliance requirement, has failed to report misconduct to DoJ OPR as required;

- Oversight: What review, if any, have FBI agents made of these matters [as they relate to FBI jurisdiction for reviewing FISA violations];

- DoJ OPR: What complaints have FBI agents made to DoJ OPR related to the inability to review the President's FISA violations;

- DoJ OPR Audit: When did DoJ OPR review [1] the information (related to the apparent false FBI Director certifications; inaction by FBI; failure of personnel to report misconduct as required under ABA and MAOP), and [2] disconnects between [a] the requirements; and [b] the failure to do what was required: Follow procedures

- DOJ OPR: How has DoJ OPR been blocked from reviewing these situations, misconduct, information, and violations;

- Obstruction: What knowledge does Addington and DoJ Attorneys in OIPR have of the efforts to thwart FBI agents from reviewing violations of FISA, 18 USC 1809; and

- DoJ Attorney Peer Reports: what information do the ABA-certified attorneys have, that they have not provided as required, of misconduct by attorney-peers, as required under the ABA-rules.

This is absurdity feeding off itself, but has major implications and safety of life issues. The RNC-PNAC crew believes, despite the public knowledge, they can shut things down, you're hearing more non-sense and excuses.

Sham war, paper Tiger: Why no accountability for the failure to solve the problems in Afghanistan -- the Taliban is rising up, yet NATO is supposedly fully supporting the efforts in Afghanistan;

Lack of evidence: Why no straight story on who placed the explosives in the WTC; and the FBI can't link Osama to 9-11;

Two standards on standards: Why is detention in Guantanamo bad, but the rendition program is "OK" -- both are abusive;

Diversions: Why is the US blaming Iran in June 06 for things that supposedly happened in January 06: It took this long to put a story together because they're not sure who to blame/don't want to accept responsibility for the internal insurgency;

Insurgents respected more than Americans: The US is secretly negotiating with the very people they would have you believe they're fighting: The insurgents; yet, the US isn't willing to discuss issues with the American people or Congress.

* * *

Notice, the phone company CEO with AT&T, when asked about the activity, did not deny it; rather, he said, "It's classified." This tells us one important thing: That there is a reason the activity is classified.

Therefore we know:

He has failed to deny something that he should deny if it is not occurring [Admissible by a Grand Jury];

There has been a discussion between at least DoJ Attorneys and AT&T CEO on how to respond to the question

By saying the activity is "classified" (as opposed to denying it), the AT&T CEO has made a fatal blunder. In order to have [an activity or series of actions] "classified," (1)someone had to classify the real activity; and (2) there had to be something to classify. Indeed, points (1) and (2) confirm, contrary to the AT&T CEO intention before the Congress, that there was something was going on. Yet, this is wholly at odds with DoJ court motions that they cannot [ say anything/have a trial ] as it would confirm something, yet arguably in doing so DoJ has committed fraud upon the Court reviewing the AT&T litigation.

The issue is: Given we know (1) the activity is occurring; and (2) the conduct violates ORCON [classifies information that is illegal], we know that the larger pattern of conduct is consistent with what happened with Plame-Libby-Iraq WMD:

A. Violating of Security Classification Guidelines: Classifying information that is related to illegal activity, a violation of ORCON;

C. Circular reasoning: Violating one set of laws for one reason; then turning around that initial violation as a pretext to expand violations into other areas, all contrary to law;

D. Conspiracy: Others involved in the propaganda and spin to sell the effort [Which we know is going on with the FISA issue, as evidenced by the non-sense from Adam];

* * *

If Congress mandates that FISA is a federal statute and a federal matter, but the FBI and Congress refuse to enforce that statute, then there is a way to bring into force the federal law of the land, but at the state level in the state grand jury system.

1. History of Incorporation and Hawaii

This executive has asserted that the power of government -- the power to make treaties, and engage in foreign policy -- is a power unique to him. He is wrong. Congress and the Courts have a shared role in those functions. He cannot make treaties on his own. Rather, it is Congress -- as we saw with Texas and Hawaii -- who can make the decision to annex and incorporate land, without the Executive. This is not something the Executive has a "sole" or exclusive power. Rather, it is simply a power that Government's have, if they are permitted to abuse power.

The lesson of incorporation, expansion, and territorial gain is not something that is an exclusive "foreign power" of the Executive. Rather, it is something which Congress has a responsibility: To ensure the new citizens and the land acquired remain under the protection of the Constitution.

This is a power which only the Congress has -- the power to mandate that the land acquired from Spain and France remains under the protection of the law of the land, and not abused by any tyrant.

If this Executive chooses to defy the law, and say that any part of the US is not protected, then Congress has the power, and the duty, to fulfill it's treaty obligations it made to those who live in Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, and the other acquired territories to ensure that their rights are protected.

Hawaii is in a special position. It agreed to give up its local laws on the assumption that, by incorporation, it would have a better system. Today, it is clear that were Congress fails to protect the rights of the citizens of Hawaii, Hawaii may do what other states may wish to explore: Assert local laws of Hawaii to ensure that their system of justice meet or exceeds that which Congress promised.

2. The terms of Hawaii Incorporation

Congress, when it passed FISA, reminded the Executive that the State of Hawaii would have a system of justice that matched the Constitution.

The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfillment of the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with this Joint Resolution nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise Determine. [190 U.S. 197 ]

If FISA – something which Congress has determined applies to Hawaii -- is not respected by the US federal government or the President in Hawaii, then Hawaii may enact and put into force all legislation, judicial, and executive power to bring the FISA into full force.

In turn, under the 14th Amendment, all American Citizens are entitled to the same protections that Hawaii may enjoy: Full protection of Hawaiian system of governance, as affirmed [190 U.S. 197].

3. Here are the implications

If the Executive and Legislature of the US refuse to enforce the laws of the United States in the acquired territories, then they have failed to fulfill their treaty obligations;

If the Executive wants to invoke a "power" of foreign relations in order to justify domestic abuse, then attached to that power comes the responsibility to ensure that the people on that land have their rights protected;

If he wants to invoke a treaty power to justify abuse abroad and at home, then attached to that power is the responsibility to ensure, jointly with Congress and the Courts, that the promises of the 1800s are met;

If Hawaii is not guaranteed a Constitutional system, then Hawaii may use domestic State laws and courts to do what Congress refuses to do: Ensure there remains a Constitutional system in place for Hawaii, and use the grand jury system at the state level to indict the President and Vice President for war crimes.

In turn, that will trigger Oklahoma’s state level grand jury system which permits grand juries to investigated crimes at the state level. [OK State Grand Jury affirmed [2002 OK CR 28]; Ref ]

If the US government will not enforce at the Federal level the laws of the land, including 18 USC 1802, then the citizens of Oklahoma may, by petition, order a grand jury to investigate the things which Hawaii has the full power to do: Bring into force the US Constitution and FISA at the State level.

In turn, relying on House Rule 603 –- which recognizes the state power to bring indictments against the President -- the states may rely on the Precedent of New York and New Jersey to directly indict with state-level grand juries the President and Vice President, as was done with James Burr over the duel with Hamilton, without going through the House of Representatives.

* * *

History

These events are not unprecedented, and there are solutions. What is to be done when the government refuses to investigate criminal activity, and Congress refuses to shut down funding for illegal things?